Venturing into the unknown future ---A future that may or may not come ---Part 1 --- Installment 4

Road to 2012 by Dennis L. Pearson

(c) 2008/2009/2010/2011 by Dennis L. Pearson All Rights Reserved --- No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission from the author.

Obama Social Agenda ---

Be it noted at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner, Obamapromised to:• Sign a hate crimes bill into law.• Sign the Employment Non-discrimination Act into law.• Overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).Which would jeopardize traditional marriage in every state.• Defend every LGBT activist who is nominated for afederal post.• Rescind regulations banning HIV-infected foreigners fromentering the country.• Overturn a law passed by Congress that reaffirmed a long-standing policy that forbids gays from serving in the military.(Clinton implemented the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy – whichviolated the law passed by Congress.)

President Barack Obama on Wednesday October 28, 2009 didindeed sign the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation,a milestone that activists compared to the passage of 1960scivil rights legislation empowering blacks.

The new law added acts of violence against gay, lesbian,bisexual and transgender people to the list of federal hatecrimes. Gay rights activists voiced hope that the Obamaadministration would advance more issues, including legislationto bar workplace discrimination, allow military service andrecognize same-sex marriages.

But at that time the nation was much per-occupied by thesituation in Afghanistan, the Economy, the Baseball Playoffsand the Health Care debate to pay notice ...

And as it was, Obama's political critics were clearly at the top oftheir game adding to all the distractions by decrying all thegovernment Bailout money....stimulus bills...cash for clunkers...hundreds and hundreds of billions - maybe even trillions - spentwithout a single Member of Congress being held accountablefor what their wild spending spree would do to America's futurestretching beyond even their grandchildren.

Their charge was that nearly 13 TRILLION in taxpayer dollars inbailouts and loans have been agreed to by Congress, the Bushand Obama Treasury Departments, and the out of control Fed.The dollar amounts to them were:

• ... More than FDR's New Deal which they decried associalist• ... More than the entire Iraq war which they decried as adebacle• ... More than the 1980’s savings and loan mess• ... More than the Korean War ...

With the end game being according to these critics that Ourconstitutional principles and freedoms are being assaulted atevery turn by the following:

Constant economic crises -- the housing crisis and the resultingchaos is just one example of an economic bubble created bycentrally-planned interest rates and money manipulation;

The destruction of the middle class -- as fuel, food, housing,medical care and education costs soar, everyone who is NOTon the government dole is forced to make do with less as thevalue of their money slowly decreases;

Their catch phrase being that Congress had no skin in thegame ... The phrase attributable to the pen of the lateConservative Columnist William Safire who wrote: "The skin inthis case is a synecdoche for the self. [T]he game is theinvestment, commitment or gamble being undertaken. Thus,investors in a company will be more comfortable in their ownskins if they know that the managers are personally invested aswell - that they share the risk and have an incentive to share thegains."

And of course, that's what these activists for the Conservativecause wanted Congressmen to do ... They claimed thatCongress needed to put some skin in the game to share in therisks and therefore make better decisions. To accomplish this, these activists urged the American public to keep the pressureon and spread the word

Then too, grassroots movements at tea parties and town hallsacross the country have given the message that Americans areconcerned about their country's future—and they are trying tomake a difference. This shrinking faith in a growing governmenthas turned ordinary Americans into outspoken activists. Millionsof average Americans have gathered in small towns and bigcities across the country to evoke the same grassrootsrevolutionary spirit that propelled America to her independencemore than two centuries ago. … Or at least their supporters saythey are.

And, What all of the town hall protesters and tea parties have incommon is a viewpoint vastly different from the prevailingopinions in Washington or the Beltway. The idea is a new twiston America's old promise—Americans can govern themselvesand choose how to spend their own time and money. It's theidea of self-destiny; it's the idea that each person decides forhimself where his trust rests—in God, not government. It's theidea that the Constitution has been and always should be therules by which government operates, restricting governmentintrusion and ensuring freedom for the people.

These ideas were revolutionary in 1773, when protestingcolonists ditched British tea into Boston Harbor. Americanstoday may not drink as much tea as they used to, but in light ofa government that has evolved over the last two centuries,these ideas of liberty once again seem like radical viewpoints.What does Obama say on these issues if not now, historically?

Stephen G Calabresi, the co-founder of the Federalist Societyand a professor of law at Northwestern University wrote thefollowing October 28, 2008 in an article "Obama's'Redistribution' Constitution ---The courts are poised for atakeover by the judicial left."

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio stationWBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court underChief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues ofredistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of politicaland economic justice in this society," and "to that extent asradical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court,it wasn't that radical."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essentialconstraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in theConstitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say,he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only aguarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not anentitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

To the above, Calabresi, raised the question of whether Mr.Obama could in good faith take the presidential oath to"preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he wasrequired when he took the oath of office. Then Calabresiasked: " Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it iswritten, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare?Was his call for a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currentlypay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights towelfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and theredistribution of wealth? "

Calabresi suggesting: "Perhaps the candidate ought to beasked to answer these questions before the election rather thanafter. But Calabresi in asking this question October 28, 2008 didit a little too late ...

Health Care Debate

To the Conservative cause, the icing on the cake, meaning thetipping point for action was the Democratic-controlledCongress's gold-plated government plan for the takeover of ourhealth care system! To them this takeover needed to bestopped ... And that's why the grassroots Town Halls and TeaParties sprung up.

But Nancy Pelosi saw to it that at least in the House ofRepresentatives that the health care reform bill would not bestopped. She did it twice ... Initially when the Health CareMeasure was brought to the House for approval of the House'sversion of Health Car and then after the Senate Version waspassed she kept the idea alive in the House after theunexpected election of Scott Brown a Republican inMassachusetts ... It is said that after the Scott Brown victory andthe loss of a filibuster proof Senate that Obama had decided topursue Health Care Reform in increments and work instead onJob creation ... But Pelosi still wanted a more radical approachand a 39% increase on Health Care Premiums for Non-group individuals by Anthem Insurance Company of Californiaprovided the incentive for Pelosi to carry on the fight and shepersuaded Barack Obama to buy using whatever pressure hisadministration could muster to bring the debate to a successfulconclusion.

At the beginning of the Health Care debate under Pelosi'sguidance The Democratic-controlled House had narrowlypassed by a vote of 220 to 215 a landmark health care reformlegislation , handing President Barack Obama what seemed tobe a close but hard won victory on his signature domesticpriority at 11:14 PM EST Saturday, November 7, 2009. Thelate Saturday vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin along-delayed debate on the issue that had come to overshadowall others in Congress.

Please note --- In the United Steelworkers of America, Pelosiand the Democratic-controlled Congress had their supporters ...The Union's position was that health care for all was the civilrights issue of our time ... And that the time was now to act.

To the Union the essential component of any good health careplan would be the following:1) Affordable options and reform of insurance practices thatresult in health care for all Americans.2) A public option that will lower costs by competing with theprivate sector and offer coverage for Americans who cannotafford alternatives.3) No taxation for employer-provided insurance and rules toensure that big employers retain coverage.4) Shared responsibility by requiring all employers to providecoverage, also known as "pay to Play."5) Significant cost containment to help families, retirees,businesses and our governments.6) A Federal funded catastrophic reinsurance program to haveemployers and VEBAs that provide benefits for pre-Medicareretirees ages 55-64.

The House had passed sweeping health-care legislation, hoursafter President Obama visited the Capitol to make a personalclosing argument for his most important domestic policy initiativeto the Democratic Caucus.... In this role, the President was likea Coach in the locker room before the game urging his playerson to victory ... Win the battle for whomever ... And theSteelworkers in their stand on health care reform quote thePresident as saying the following:

" You can't even think about negotiating for a wage increasebecause the whole negotiation is about trying to keep thebenefits you already have ... That's not the fault of theemployer. It's the fault of a broken Health Care system that'ssucking up all the money."

So it was, On November 5, 2009, at noon, on the steps of theCapitol in Washington D.C., thousands of Americans gatheredto express their heated opposition to the pending governmentcapture of the nation's entire health care sector according to Robert Romano , Senior News Editor of the Americans forLimited Government.These individuals, many of whom traveled from across thecountry, were protesting the takeover of more than one-sixth ofthe nation's economy by a government that they claim can'teven balance its own budget. They were wary of bureaucratsgetting between them and their doctors. They opposed anyrationing of health care for senior citizens. And they refused toaccept the unsustainable hundreds of billions of dollars of taxesand spending riddled in the 2,000 pages of the bill.

Several Republican members of Congress, led by RepublicanCongresswoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann andCongressman Tom Price (R-GA) thrilled the crowd withspeeches as the gathered throng chanted "Kill the bill!" and "Noyou can't!" They were joined by top radio host and author ofLiberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin, and acclaimed actor JonVoight.

Upon the conclusion of the rally, these concerned constituentsstormed the House of Representatives office buildings topetition their members of Congress in person, fulfilling a criticalcivic duty. Their civic action complicated the Democratic Houseplans to hold a final vote on the House Health Care Reform Billthat Saturday, November 7, 2009

Bachmann said their country needed them to defeat the bill asshe encouraged them to speak up against Barack Obama,Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. "The biggest vote in the UnitedStates, the biggest voice in the United States is your voice,"said Bachmann. "Quite simply, the Republicans don't have thevotes to kill this bill… We knew we were limited, but what weknew was unlimited was the voice of persuasion of theAmerican people. And that's why you're here today."

To defeat the bill its opponents—including 54 percent of theAmerican people according to Rasmussen—need to be at least41 House Democrats voting with Republicans. However,despite the huge majority Pelosi had to work with, HouseDemocrats were still working to achieve a plurality. In short, shedidn't yet have the votes.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal of Wednesday,November 4, 2009 House leaders didn't appear to have securedthe 218 votes they needed to pass the bill. They were movingquickly to swear in two Democrats elected Tuesday November3, 2009, which would give the party 258 seats in the House andallow leaders to lose as many as 40 Democratic votes withoutlosing their majority… House leaders spent Wednesdayscrambling to secure votes from freshmen and lawmakers inswing districts."

Adding urgency to the American people's presence at theCapitol were moves in Congress to speedily move to a vote onthe bill, H.R. 3962, in the House. According to top Capitol Hillsources, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had announced that theHouse would convene an emergency session on Saturday,November 7th with votes occurring as early as 9AM. But thefinal vote did not occur until the late hour of that day.

The single purpose in Pelosi's mind: to rush the bill through asquickly and covertly as possible—in the face of a tidal wave ofpublic opposition.

Fortunately, throughout the year, the American people madetheir voices heard against the unbridled expansion ofgovernment. They've stood up and spoke out at tea parties. Atthe summer town halls. On the phone and fax. Via email. And inperson. They have said, "No!"

They were not alone according to the Wall Street Journal, as 54 percent of voters opposed the "public option" proposal,which only 42 percent supported. But defeating this bill wouldbe no easy task.

Moderate and conservative members of the Democrat caucuswere actually the American people's only hope to kill this bill. AsCongresswoman Bachmann noted, there are not enoughRepublicans to defeat ObamaCare.

In response, activists nationwide focused on those vulnerablemembers of the Democrat majority who would be concernedabout a tough election battle in 2010. Some already caved in toconstituent pressure—especially after crushing GOP victories inVirginia and New Jersey on Tuesday. Activists targeted some92 House Democrats, including all members of the Blue Dogcoalition.

In the end, it was the vulnerable members of the majority whowould have to choose on November 7, 2009 who they wouldserve. Those citizens who traveled hundreds, even thousands,of miles to demand the right to their own health care choices—or the politically powerful liberal elite.

A triumphant Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi cited thisclosely won victory as significant as the passage of SocialSecurity in 1935 and Medicare in 1965. Pelosi was jubilant shehad just delivered on a promise decades in the making that herpredecessors had failed to bring home ... But in reality theongoing political division in regard to health care reform did notend with its passage in the House of Representatives ... Thecurtain had closed on Act One with the remaining Acts to followscripting a plot line similar to Act One or becoming a GreekTragedy for those who support the current Health Care bill as itstands or a Grassroots victory for forces that do not want anynationalized health care system of any form.

The House bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep.Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds anoverwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposedwere 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats...Republicans in theHouse were nearly unanimous in opposing the plan that wouldexpand coverage to tens of millions of Americans who lack itand place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry ...They were joined in opposition by 39 blue-dog DemocratsObama, who went to Capitol Hill earlier on Saturday to lobbywavering Democrats, said in a statement after the vote, "I lookforward to signing it into law by the end of the year." ... But as ithappened, Obama needed to revise his time table. His new goalwas to sign it into law before the President's First State of theUnion Speech before a Joint Session of Congress. But thatdidn't happen either as the debate continued into March...In order to assist people seeking to read and review the health"reform" legislation (H.R. 3962) as passed by House Democrats,a list of important page numbers and questionable provisions inthe 1,990-page "Affordable Health Care for America Act:" hasbeen made available by opponents to the Bill.

Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibited the sale of privateindividual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcingindividuals to purchase coverage through the federalgovernmentPage 111—Section 223 established a new board of federalbureaucrats (the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee") todictate the health plans that all individuals must purchasePage 211—Section 321 established a new government-runhealth plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at theLewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans tolose their existing coveragePage 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health carePage 255—Section 345 included language requiring verificationof income for individuals wishing to receive federal health caresubsidies under the bill—while the bill includes a requirementfor applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include asimilar requirement to verify applicants' identity, thus leaving thedoor open for identity fraud for undocumented immigrants andothers wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefitsPage 297—Section 501 imposed a 2.5 percent tax on allindividuals who do not purchase "bureaucrat-approved" healthinsurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomesunder $250,000, leaking the impression that this provision brokea central promise of then-Senator Obama's presidentialcampaignPage 313—Section 512 imposed an 8 percent "tax on jobs" forfirms that cannot afford to purchase "bureaucrat-approved"health coverage; according to an analysis by Harvard ProfessorKate Baicker, such a tax would place millions "at substantial riskof unemployment"—With minority workers perhaps losing theirjobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts.Page 336—Section 551 imposed additional job-killing taxes, inthe form of a half-trillion dollar "surcharge," more than half ofwhich will hit small businesses; according to a model developedby President Obama's senior economic advisor,Page 520—Section 1161 cut more than $150 billion fromMedicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions ofseniors' existing coverage such taxes could cost up to 5.5million jobsPage 733—Section 1401 established a new Center forComparative Effectiveness Research; the bill included noprovisions preventing the government-run health plan fromusing such research to deny access to life-saving treatments oncost grounds, similar to Britain's National Health Service, whichdenies patient treatments costing more than £35,000Page 1174—Section 1802(b) included provisions entitled"TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES" to fundcomparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi'spromise that "We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any billthat passes the House," and the President's promise not to raisetaxes on families with incomes under $250,000Please note - The following item was eliminated by amendment before the final vote allowing a few blue dog democrats to joinwith other democrats in passing the bill ...Page 110—Section 222(e) required the use of federal dollars tofund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, ifthe Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require theplan to fund elective abortions

The Stupak Amendment to Bill 3942 reads as follows:HAdmt 509 to H.R 3942 -- An amendment printed in Part C ofHouse Report 111-330 to codify the Hyde Amendment in H.R.3962.

The amendment prohibits federal funds for abortion services inthe public option. It also prohibits individuals who receiveaffordability credits from purchasing a plan that provideselective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both whoreceive affordability credits and who do not, to separatelypurchase with their own funds plans that cover electiveabortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offerelective abortions ... 11/7/2009 House amendment agreed to bythe Yeas and Nays: 240 - 194, 1 Present

According to the media --- The legislation would require mostAmericans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies tothose who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies wouldhave to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers andcompanies would be slapped with penalties if they defied thegovernment's mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage becauseof pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, andinsurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums onthe basis of gender or medical history. The industry would alsolose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on pricefixing and market allocation.

At its core, the measure would create a federally regulatedmarketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In thebill's most controversial provision, the government would sellinsurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecaststhat premiums for it would be more expensive than for policiessold by private companies.

Yet The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly forPresident Barack Obama on Sunday following the House voteas Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in theHouse had nowhere to go in the Senate. The Senate wouldwrite its own Bill.

Speaking from the Rose Garden about 14 hours after the lateSaturday vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on arelay team and "take the baton and bring this effort to the finishline on behalf of the American people."

The problem was that the Senate would not run with the HouseBill. The government health insurance plan included in theHouse bill was unacceptable to a few Democratic moderateswho held the balance of power in the Senate. Some Senatorssaid that the health care reform bill passed by the HouseNovember 7, 2009 was "dead on arrival" when it arrived in theSenate... Yet such public talk proved to be deceptive as theconcept of Health Care Reform did advance in the Senate withthe introduction of numerous Bills all unreconciled with that ofthe House Democrats overcame their own divisions and brokean impasse that threatened the bill after liberals grudginglyaccepted tougher restrictions on abortion funding, as abortionopponents demanded.

In the Senate, the stumbling block was the idea of thegovernment competing with private insurers. And Harry Reidworked diligently to overcome any divisions in his party thatwould threaten the ability of the Senate to pass its own Bill.Notwithstanding some minor tinkering, the U.S. Senate has nowpassed the government takeover of healthcare. And despite thefact that it may not contain all of the far left’s extreme demands,it is almost impossible to overstate the nefarious effect of whathas emerged.

As Barack Obama has rightly intoned, even as now written,without the “public option,” the measure embodies the singlemost massive government entitlement program since socialsecurity. One-sixth of the economy will be summarily placed inthe hands of federal bureaucrats. And the greatest health caresystem in the history of the world will be torn asunder.

The Democrats have already made clear that the current bill isjust the opening salvo of their all-out assault on every aspect ofprivate health care. As Tom Harkin (D-IA) has said, “What weare buying here is a modest home, not a mansion. But, we canbuild additions as we go along … In the future, amending it andchanging it isn’t going to be as tough as passing it in the firstplace. We amend Medicare and Social Security all the time…That’s what we will do in health care.”

As Harkin and others have also made clear, a binding publicoption is inevitable. Full funding of abortions is simply a matterof some minor tinkering. And then, once the new law hasinserted the federal government into every aspect of healthcare, a sprawling new “Department of Health” will be created,empowered to control who receives which medical procedureand – even more chilling – who does not. A worst case scenariothat many of us don't look forward to.

ALG President Bill Wilson has condemned Senate MajorityLeader Harry Reid for inserting language into the Senate healthcare bill that would make it nearly impossible to repeal whatWilson called a "health care rationing board."

"The Independent Medicare Advisory Board will become theHealthcare Soviet—dictating rules, rates and procedures inAmerica's health care system with no appeal. That is why Reidhas given it the most protection," Wilson explained.In the Reid Substitute, under Section 3403 in a section entitled"Limitations on Changes to this Subsection," it states, "It shallnot be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives toconsider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference reportthat would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."Section 3403 establishes the Independent Medicare AdvisoryBoard (IMAB), which would "reduce the per capita rate of growthin Medicare spending" under the Reid substitute. Wilson saidthat is "rationing."

"The whole purpose of this panel is to ration health care toseniors, no question," Wilson said.

"To hide that, the bill states that 'The proposal shall not includeany recommendation to ration health care' right after it getsthrough establishing the power for the IMAB to ration healthcare," Wilson explained.

"This is Orwellian Newspeak of the first order," Wilson declared,adding, "Right in this section, Harry Reid is saying that they'regoing to ration health care away from seniors, but they're justnot going to call it that."

"And then, to lock it in place, Reid goes as far as to require atwo-thirds vote in order to amend or repeal the rationing board,"Wilson explained.

The Senate rules change was exposed on the floor of theSenate by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC),as reported by theNational Review Online. Senator DeMint said, "This is notlegislation. This is not law. This is a rule change. It's a pretty bigdeal. We will be passing a new law and at the same timecreating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend orrepeal the law."

DeMint said that under Senate rules, it should take a two-thirdsvote of the Senate to invoke cloture on legislation that containssuch rules changes. And, that, "[A]s the chair has confirmed,Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate,states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules,the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of thesenators present and voting."

However, the Senate President ruled that the rules change wasnot a rules change, but a change in procedure."This is completely unconstitutional," Wilson noted, pointing toArticle I, Section 5 of the Federal Constitution, which states:"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings…""Under current rules, the Reid substitute, which includes a ruleschange making it out of order to amend or repeal a section ofthe bill, should require a two-thirds vote in order to be enacted,"Wilson explained, concluding, "That has not happened, and willnot happen, meaning that once passed, any attempt to removethe health care rationing board will be deemed out of orderforevermore. People are going to die."

Or be fined or go to jail if one fails to purchase health insurance.“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men arecreated equal, that they are endowed by their Creator withcertain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Libertyand the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights,Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their justpowers from the consent of the governed, — That wheneverany Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, itis the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institutenew Government, laying its foundation on such principles andorganizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem mostlikely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,will dictate that Governments long established should not bechanged for light and transient causes; and accordingly allexperience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed tosuffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves byabolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when along train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably thesame Object evinces a design to reduce them under absoluteDespotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off suchGovernment, and to provide new Guards for their futuresecurity.”

Mr. Jefferson was not just writing to the Americans alive in1776, but to all Americans for all time to come. His words arenot meant to be locked away in unread books, or to bevenerated as sacred text, but rather to be thought about anddebated. We Americans have a wonderful heritage, but it doesus no good if we know little about it and give little thought to it.And it is an injustice if the intent of this heritage is misused,This declaration is not only the cornerstone on which the basisor justification for the independence of United States ofAmerica was built, it is the single most radical statement inWestern political history since the time of Judges in the OldTestament.

The Declaration of Independence, stated by proclamation, thatmen (humanity) are endowed with unalienable rights. Also notethe phrase "among these are" which indicates that unalienableRights are not limited to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit ofHappiness"

Universal Healthcare, of course, is not listed as one of theseSelf-evident unalienable rights ... But, Health care will be addedto the list of unalienable Rights. How you ask? By proclamationof those who believe that the U.S. Constitution is only aguarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not anentitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.... But theywant to make it so. And they proclaim it through their revision ofthe Declaration of Independence which although important tothe heritage of the United States is not part of the U.S.Constitution.

Please note --- The U.S. has a written Constitution which the U.S. Supreme Court as custodian of , becomes the last court ofappeal to interpret the Constitutionality of all Laws passed byCongress and all Executive Orders proclaimed by the President..... This being a different system then what exists in the UnitedKingdom which does not have one document known as theConstitution which prevails over all law ... The BritishConstitution is Unwritten in the sense that many documents ofhistoric importance are included in creating what rights andresponsibilities exist for all subjects of their realm... Its legislativebody, Parliament, is the creator of law and this law is normallythought as Constitutional. The Courts of the realm apply the lawin judgments they don't interpret the law and make themunconstitutional if found wanting.

Look at this commentary by Mike Jordan (July 30, 2009) entitled"Out and About: Health care for everyone?":There has been a lot of talk lately about health care for allAmericans. As our ability to pay for, access and even receivehealth care for ourselves and our families diminishes yearly andthe debate heats up as to how to pay for health care foreveryone or even provide it to everyone at all, it might be wiseto consider a few things.

Is health care for everyone one of our unalienable rights underthe U.S. Constitution?

According to a Feb. 22, 2003, Fiedor Report on the News, DougFiedor wrote, “Back in the days of the Founding Fathers, everyfamily was said to have two well-studied books in their library.The most important bestseller around 1775, of course, was theBible. The second bestseller in the Colonies was ‘Blackstone’sCommentaries on The Law,’ then a new three-volume set onEnglish common law.”

Being “the” law book of the day, it is no wonder our foundingfathers — people like George Washington, James Madison,Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin — referenced it and quotedit often.

Continuing, Fiedor wrote, “So, it is no surprise that the phrasewritten by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independenceoriginated in Chapter One of Book One of Blackstone’s, titled,‘Absolute Rights of Individuals.’ Blackstone describes theabsolute rights of individuals as being our rights to life, libertyand property. Jefferson took the editorial liberty of changing‘property,’ to ‘pursuit of happiness,’ knowing full well that allColonial Americans would understand exactly what was meant.”

Fiedor states that it is we Americans that seem to have aproblem with that meaning. “We Americans have lost theconcept of true freedom because we no longer know exactlywhat our rights are,” he wrote. “In today’s United States theword ‘rights’ has been corrupted so completely that fewAmericans any longer know the difference between the termsprocedural rights and civil rights and our unalienable rights andliberties.”

Blackstone defines those absolute rights, but looking at just thefirst one, “life,” I believe his definition is telling in light of ourpresent health care debate.

“Life — the right of personal security: ‘This right consists of aperson’s legal and unintentional enjoyment of his life, his limbs,his body, his health and his reputation.’”

So if life is an unalienable right, or one of those absolute rights,and a person’s health is his or hers to enjoy, what happenswhen a person’s health is impaired? Shouldn’t that person havethe right to be able to get the help needed to improve his or herhealth and be able to do it without cost of home, family securityand savings — even livelihood?

There are those who say health care is up to the individual andeveryone should accept the status quo. Those folks may bemembers of the privileged few, like our political leaders inCongress, the ones that have great health care we pay for —something they don’t have to worry about as long as they keeptheir jobs.

But in the private sector it is obviously a different matter.Companies are forced to cut or drop health care coverage fortheir employees because it has become too costly. At the veryleast they are forced to cut huj increase deductibles andbasically turn what probably started out as a health careprogram that covered many ills to more of a major medical policythat covers only catastrophic illnesses and then only after eachperson pays a huge deductible with added loopholes.

Then, is health care an American’s unalienable right? Maybe ormaybe not, but without health care for the majority of the people— and health care that is affordable — families will continue togo bankrupt, businesses will be forced to cease operations andfewer and fewer people will have coverage. People will stopseeking preventive care altogether, only seeking help inemergencies, and costs will continue to increase anyway.

So what happens to those other unalienable rights Jeffersonwrote about? With health care eating up peoples’ savings,causing them to lose their property and possibly their livelihood— say nothing of liberty or, as Jefferson stated, their pursuit ofhappiness — is all but lost.

For your information, Blackstone’s Commentaries are stillstudied, well over 200 years after they were first written, byevery major law school in the nation.

Fiedor, at the end of his report stated, “Thus, the protection oflife, liberty and property — our natural, absolute andunalienable rights — became the underlying reason our countrywas formed. There is, of course, a caveat here: As members ofsociety, we are also required to respect these rights in allothers. Therefore, the most important reason we empowergovernments to make and enforce laws is to insure thateveryone respects the rights of others.”

In my mind, that may very well be where we are right now.Maybe it is time to empower the government to make andenforce laws to insure good quality health care for everyAmerican at a fair cost delivered in a timely manner for the rightsof all, not a select few.

Interestingly enough, Fiedor in this report used his argument forless government control and a return to more freedom for thepeople as he sees our freedoms being taken away by those inpower and calling for members of the public to speak out fortheir rights.

I don’t disagree with that idea at all. What I haven’t seen happenin my lifetime is our so-called free market system deliveringgood quality health care at affordable cost for all of our citizens,nor the insurance industry paying what it should pay for or covereither.

Where we have ended up on the issue is with a lot of finger-pointing by health care providers, insurance companies and thepharmaceutical industries, i.e., really big business, with no oneadmitting any wrongdoing or being willing to voluntarily change.

So the government is trying to step in for the good of thepeople, to insure (no pun intended) the rights of all others.Hopefully that is the case and not just another of our freedomslost.

It is obvious something needs to be done soon; a continuationof the health care policies of the last several decades is a planto fail — impacting everyone.

Does the Constitution allow the federal government to forceindividual citizens to buy health insurance? Sen. Tom Coburn(R-OK) and Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) have been waging awar to force Members of Congress to include a conciseexplanation of the constitutional authority empowering Congressto enact legislation as part of every bill. The legislation titled“The Enumerated Powers Act” would not allow the House orSenate to consider any legislation not containing an explanationof the constitutional authority for legislation. Clearly this isneeded, because Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) had a hard timeresponding to a simple question from a CNS reporter thatstrikes at the core of ObamaCare: “Does the United StatesConstitution give the United States Congress the authority tomandate individuals to have health insurance, to carry healthinsurance?”

Members of Congress should be able to provide theconstitutional authority for the federal government mandatingthe purchasing of health insurance under the penalty of finesand jail time if they support that idea. For that matter, theyshould be able to recite a constitutional basis for all legislationthey support. It should be the first issue a member considers.Not true with ObamaCare.

And consider the following question: Where in the Constitutiondoes it state that Government as having the authority to FORCEthe U.S. Taxpayer to Purchase something in order to be a legalcitizen of the U.S.? The fact is, by Constitutional Amendmentthe poll tax and literacy tax for voting is not allowed ...Mandatingthat individuals must obtain health insurance, and imposing anypenalty—civil or criminal—on any private citizen for notpurchasing health insurance is not authorized by any provisionof the U.S. Constitution. As such, the bill should be determinedunconstitutional, and should not survive a court challenge. Thisis because, the federal government has limited jurisdiction –having only enumerated powers – unless a specific provision ofthe Constitution empowers a particular law, then that law isunconstitutional. There is no authorization for the individualmandate

The insurance companies, of course, will get their money andthey of course will pay off their buddies in Congress. Actuallyfining people for not wanting healthcare. Now that is crazy.What a convoluted piece of put it in your face legislation this is.Also, requiring individuals to have health insurance equals a taxon the very breath you take. Taxing people for just being alive isa disgrace

The Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government toregulate interstate commerce, does not apply to the health carebill, “because there is no interstate commerce when privatecitizens do not purchase health insurance”. The CommerceClause covers only those matters where citizens engage involuntary economic activity

Government can only regulate economic action; it cannotcoerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish toparticipate in commerce

Nor is the bill’s individual mandate authorized under the GeneralWelfare Clause., which applies only to congressional spending.“It applies to money going out from the government; it does notconfer or concern any government power to take in money,such as would happen with the individual mandate. Thereforethe mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare ClauseObama has stated that he won't "Rule Out" JAIL TIME as apenalty for failing to PURCHASE insurance ..... Is this one signof the mark of the beast?

While many hospitals will not turn away anyone needing carebecause of his or her inability to pay, health care is not costfree. Governors of many states have formed a group to studyways to expand health coverage to more residents But untileveryone has coverage, who will pay for the health care of asick or injured uninsured person who is unable to pay? Theanswer is, as taxpayers, we all will.

But should this be the case? Are there times when injured orsick persons are so negligent in their behavior they should bedenied treatment if they cannot afford to pay for it?

Should the insurance companies and the taxpayers refuse topay for medical treatment for someone who is injured or sickbecause he or she:

1. rode a motorcycle without wearing a helmet?2. didn’t buckle his seatbelt?3. had self-inflicted wounds?4. overdosed on drugs?5. was drunk while driving?6. smoked cigarettes?7. continued to drink after being diagnosed with cirrhosis ofthe liver?8. over-ate while obese or under-ate while too skinny?

Which of the above actions should be considered voluntary?What behavior would you add to the above list? Whichbehaviors do you think still warrant free health care?

Do you think that if health insurance companies denied paymentfor some or all of the above it would result in lower insurancepremiums for the rest of us? Or would it simply increase theprofits of the health insurers and the salaries of their executives?

And what about payment for treatment for those who havealready lived a long life and are now in their final few months oflife? Should significant sums of money be spent to prolong thelife of someone for another day or month? It has been reported"50% of Medicare dollars are spent on 5% of the Medicarepopulation largely because of costly ‘episodic, catastrophiccare’ in the final year of life.”

But is it fair for those who are denied treatment to be left tosuffer or die because they cannot pay, while those with similarbehavior, but who are rich, can afford to pay for their treatment?

Do you think the right to health care should be absolute, orshould there be some limitations on how much society is willingto pay?

According to Tom Harkins--- D- Iowa:

Affordable, continuous health care coverage is essential topreventing and managing chronic diseases, and to making thebest use of our health care dollars. Yet, today, some 47 millionAmericans do not have health insurance, and more and moreemployers are dropping health care coverage of theiremployees. In a humane, decent society, no citizens shouldhave to forego needed medical treatment because they arepriced out of the market. Improving access to quality healthcaremust include: Expanding Health Insurance for Children in Low-Income and Working Families

The federal Children’s Health Insurance Program was createdin 1997 to provide health insurance to children of workingfamilies who do not qualify for Medicaid but who cannot affordprivate insurance. By every measure, the program, known inIowa as the Healthy and Well Kids (HAWK-I), is cost-effective,and has been shown to work well in meeting children’s basichealth care needs. But even with this program in place, some55,000 Iowa children, and more than 8.5 million childrennationwide, continue to go without insurance, and the number ofchildren in families making $40,000 or less who are not eligiblefor or cannot afford private health insurance is increasing. Thatis why Congress, on a bipartisan basis, twice passed anexpansion of this program, fully paid for by increasing the tax oncigarettes and other tobacco products. Both times, thelegislation was vetoed by President. But these vetoes are notthe final word. We need to ensure that all children in Iowa andacross the U.S. are eligible for basic health care, includingregular checkups, preventive care, and prompt treatment ofinjuries and illness.

Expanding Community Health CentersBecause of the increasing cost and declining availability ofhealth insurance, Community Health Centers -- clinics thatserve everyone, regardless of ability to pay - have assumed amajor role within the U.S. health care system. As chair of theAppropriations subcommittee that funds health care initiatives, Ihave made expansion of the Community Health Center networka major priority. Since 2000, I have worked to double funding forthe program, and to construct new clinics all across the country.In Iowa, I have helped to add five new Community HealthCenters, in Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, Fort Dodge, Storm Lake,and Decatur County, while expanding the services alreadyavailable in Des Moines, Waterloo, Sioux City, Council Bluffs,Davenport, Burlington, and Ottumwa. At the same time, I havesecured federal funding to expand facilities and enhanceequipment at clinics across Iowa. I am currently working to gainfederal status and funding for a clinic in Sioux County.Improving Rural Health Care Services

Iowa has a disproportionately large population of senior citizens,and many of them live in rural communities. As co-chair of theSenate’s Rural Health Caucus, I am acutely aware of thechallenges that the Medicare program faces in largely ruralstates such as Iowa. Currently, Medicare reimburses doctorsand hospitals in rural areas at a much lower rate than in urbanareas, and this is making it increasingly difficult for ruralhospitals to stay open and for doctors to practice in ruralcommunities. I am currently cosponsoring sponsoring The CraigThomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, alsoknown as the R-HoPE Act, to address the urban-rural disparityin reimbursements, and to increase the amount of moneyMedicare pays to rural hospitals, doctors and ambulanceservices.

Helping Small Businesses to Provide Health Care CoverageSmall businesses that want to provide employees with healthcoverage are often charged higher premiums than largeemployers, and are less able to offer their employees a choiceof health plans. That is why I am cosponsoring the SmallEmployers Health Benefits Program Act. This bill would create anew program modeled after the Federal Employees HealthBenefits Program, which successfully provides affordable healthcoverage to more than eight million federal employees andretirees and their families, including members of Congress. Thebill would allow small businesses to pool their purchasing cloutto negotiate lower rates, and give small-business employees thesame kinds of health plan choices that members of Congresshave. The bill would also set reasonable limits on what insurerscan charge.

In the health care debate, Senator Harkins is said to have saidthat it was self-evident that Health Care just like life, liberty andhappiness is an unalienable right that all residents of the UnitedStates should enjoy ... What does the Senator say about theconundrum between the unalienable right of an otherwisehealthy human being still in the womb to be born so that he orshe could enjoy the promised rights of Life, Liberty and thepursuit of happiness and healthcare versus the supposive rightof a woman to treat the termination of her non life threateningpregnancy as insignificant as surgeon removing an abscessfrom her back or neck. Senator - What is your take in this? Justas the House and Senate must reconcile their very different Billsto create a Law that President Obama can sign by late Januaryto he can appear and speak triumphant when he gives hisConstitutionally required State of Union Message before a JointSession of Congress in February. You must reconcile theconsequences of these two very different and opposing life,liberty, pursuit of happiness and health care inalienable rights ...In addition you must acknowledge the Constitutional groundsyou consider Health Care an unalienable right. ThatConstitutional ground cannot cite the Declaration ofIndependence as its reference, because the Declaration ofIndependence is not found in our Written Constitution. Andneither can you cite Scottish Law as Arlen Specter once did onanother issue.

While the entire Senate voted to protect Medicare benefits ,there are big steps that still must be made to the reform billaccording to AARP. The Senate must:• Lower drug costs and close the Medicare Part D coveragegap or "doughnut hole";• Prevent costly hospital readmissions by creating a follow-up care benefit in Medicare to help people safely transitionhome after a hospital stay;• Increase home and community based services so olderAmericans can remain in their homes and avoid costlyinstitutions; and• Improve programs that help low income Americans inMedicare afford the health care and prescription drugs theyneed.

Installment 5

Of note --- A Reuters article written by Martin Petty and PrakChan Thul from Phnom Penh , Cambodia said a U.N.-backedtribunal sentenced a senior Khmer Rouge commander to 35years in prison July 26, 2010 in its first verdict on the "KillingFields" revolution blamed for 1.7 million deaths in Cambodiathree decades ago.

But 67-year-old Kaing Guek Eav, known as Duch, will onlyserve 19 years after the court subtracted 16 years for timealready served -- short of the maximum 40 years sought by theprosecution and the life behind bars many Cambodiansdemanded.

The former schoolteacher admitted during the eight-month trialto overseeing the torture and the killing of more than 14,000people but said he was only following orders.

He was found guilty of murder, torture, rape, inhumane acts,crimes against humanity and other charges as commander ofTuol Sleng prison, a converted high school also known as S-21that symbolized the horrors of the ultra-communist regimeblamed for 1.7 million deaths in 1975-79.

He betrayed no emotion as a judge read the verdict. Duch couldbe released after just 11 years if authorities believe he issufficiently rehabilitated and grant him parole

Duch had said during the trial he had no choice but to carry outorders, that he had to "kill or be killed" and operate like an"obedient machine."

Prosecutors had insisted Duch was "ideologically of the samemind" as the Khmer Rouge leaders and did nothing to stoptorture. An estimated fifth of the population died during theKhmer Rouge's 1975-79 rule over the already war-scarredcountry.

Foreign investors see the Khmer Rouge trials as a gauge towhether rule of law is taking root in one of Asia's fastest-growingfrontier markets. Justice, however, could be elusive ascontroversy surrounds other cadres awaiting trial.

The cases of former President Khieu Samphan, "BrotherNumber Two" Nuon Chea, ex-Foreign Minister Ieng Sary andhis wife, Ieng Thirith are highly complex and politicized. Manyfear they may never go to trial, or they might die before seeing acourtroom.

Standing in the way of justice, analysts say, is not just theexcessive bureaucracy and a drawn-out legal process, but apowerful single-party government that has never fully backedthe tribunal and has historical ties to the Khmer Rouge.

Many former Khmer Rouge members are now part ofCambodia's civil service and occupy top positions in provincialand central government and experts say they are keen to curtailthe court's progress and limit the scope of future investigations.Long-serving Prime Minister Hun Sen is himself a former KhmerRouge foot soldier who says he defected to eventualconquerors Vietnam. He has warned of another civil war if thecourt expands its probes into the horrors of Pol Pot's "year zero"revolution.

Finance Minister Keat Chhon has also admitted his involvementas an interpreter for late Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot, whileForeign Minister Hor Namhong has been accused of havingKhmer Rouge connections and heading a detention center. Hedenies the claims

Please note - If the court system in Cambodia was unwilling orunable to render justice to those individuals involved in theKhmer Rouge atrocities then the International Court of CriminalJustice as an international body could serve as the court of lastresort. But the Court will not act if a case is investigated orprosecuted by a national judicial system unless the nationalproceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedingswere undertaken solely to shield a person from criminalresponsibility. In addition, the ICC only tries those accused ofthe gravest crimes.

Currently the United States is not a member of the incipientInternational Court of Justice. But we are a member of theInternational Court of Justice.

It should be understand that the International Court of Justice(ICJ) has been the principal judicial organ of the United Nations(UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of theUnited Nations and began work in April 1946.

The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague(Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations,it is the only one not located in New York (United States ofAmerica).

The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with internationallaw, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisoryopinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized UnitedNations organs and specialized agencies.

The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for termsof office of nine years by the United Nations General Assemblyand the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, itsadministrative organ. Its official languages are English andFrench.

One of these Judges is Thomas Buergenthal a naturalizedAmerican born in Lubochna, Slovakia on May 11, 1934. He hasbeen a member of the Court since March 2,. 2000 and has beenre-elected to the court February 6, 2006.

Only States (States Members of the United Nations and otherStates which have become parties to the Statute of the Court orwhich have accepted its jurisdiction under certain conditions)may be parties to contentious cases.

Proceedings may be instituted in one of two ways:• Through the notification of a special agreement: thisdocument, which is of a bilateral nature, can be lodged with theCourt by either of the States parties to the proceedings or byboth of them. A special agreement must indicate the subject ofthe dispute and the parties thereto. Since there is neither an“applicant” State nor a “respondent” State, in the Court’spublications their names are separated by an oblique stroke atthe end of the official title of the case, e.g., Benin/Niger;• By means of an application: the application, which is of aunilateral nature, is submitted by an applicant State against arespondent State. It is intended for communication to the latterState and the Rules of Court contain stricter requirements withrespect to its content. In addition to the name of the partyagainst which the claim is brought and the subject of thedispute, the applicant State must, as far as possible, indicatebriefly on what basis - a treaty or a declaration of acceptance ofcompulsory jurisdiction - it claims the Court has jurisdiction, andmust succinctly state the facts and grounds on which it bases itsclaim. At the end of the official title of the case the names of thetwo parties are separated by the abbreviation “v.” (for the Latinversus), e.g., Nicaragua v. Colombia.

At present there is little concern about U.S. acceptance of ICJjurisdiction in some matters. However, there are no pending contentious case involving the United States before the Court.There is:• a case involving Whaling in the Antarctic betweenAustralia and Japan.• a Maritime Dispute between Peru and Chile• a Application of the International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination betweenGeorgia and the Russian Federation

However, the United States in 2008 was in a Request forInterpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Caseconcerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v.United States of America)

The judgment of the International Court of Justice in Avena andOther Mexican Nationals considers the obligations that a statebears towards detained foreign nationals under art 36 of theVienna Convention on Consular Relations. The VCCR is amultilateral treaty that regulates and defines the activity of theconsular post of one state, known as the ‘sending state’, in theterritory of another, known as the ‘receiving state’. One aspectof such consular activity is the protection of nationals of thesending state, specifically those detained on criminal charges.Under art 36 of the VCCR, the authorities of the receiving statemust permit contact between a detained foreign national and aconsul of the sending state, so that the consul may assist thedetainee with respect to the charges faced.

In Avena, Mexico brought a suit on behalf of certain Mexicannationals arrested in various states of the United States. Thecase focused on those sentenced to death for murder, andawaiting execution. Mexico alleged that 51 of its nationals hadnot been informed about consular access upon arrest, but werenonetheless convicted and sentenced to death. Mexico askedfor reversal of those convictions and sentences. Beyond itsimplications for the life or death of those Mexican nationals, thesuit involved complex questions of the relationship betweeninternational obligations and domestic criminal proceedings.Mexico’s claim against the US was subject to the compulsoryjurisdiction of the ICJ because both states are party to theVCCR, as well as the Optional Protocol to the ViennaConvention on Consular Relations concerning the CompulsorySettlement of Disputes.

However, At present U.S. acceptance of International Court ofCriminal Justice jurisdiction in some matters is a point ofcontention.

In a August 6, 2009 Associated Press story by Lisa Gambone ,U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking inKenya said is a “great regret” that the US was not a member ofthe International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague,

The ICC was established in 2002 as the first ever permanent,treaty based tribunal for trying genocide, war crimes and crimesagainst humanity, building on the foundations of the ad hoctribunals (ICTR, ICTY) created in the 1990s. It is currentlyinvestigating situations in the Democratic Republic of theCongo, the Central African Republic, Uganda and SudanHillary Rodham Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton,originally signed the Rome Statute (the ICC’s underlying treaty)in 2000. But the treaty was never ratified by Congress and wasthen ‘unsigned’ by George W. Bush in 2002, on worries aboutUS citizens being brought before the court.

US opposition to the ICC was then further cemented by theenactment of the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, alaw authorizing the use of any means necessary to free any USor allied personnel brought to the ICC - effectively a conditionalauthorization of US intervention in the Netherlands.

Thus the Secretary’s statements indicate a significant policyshift in favor of the court. But for those that hope this shift willresult in imminent US membership, reports that theadministration in fact remains split on the issue show that thismay not happen anytime soon.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the RomeStatute, is the first permanent, treaty based, internationalcriminal court established to help end impunity for theperpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to theinternational community.

The ICC is an independent international organization, and is notpart of the United Nations system. Its seat is at The Hague inthe Netherlands. Although the Court’s expenses are fundedprimarily by States Parties, it also receives voluntarycontributions from governments, international organizations,individuals, corporations and other entities.

The international community has long aspired to the creation ofa permanent international court, and, in the 20th century, itreached consensus on definitions of genocide, crimes againsthumanity and war crimes. The Nuremberg and Tokyo trialsaddressed war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimesagainst humanity committed during the Second World War.

In the 1990s after the end of the Cold War, tribunals like theInternational Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and forRwanda were the result of consensus that impunity isunacceptable. However, because they were established to trycrimes committed only within a specific time-frame and during aspecific conflict, there was general agreement that anindependent, permanent criminal court was needed.

On 17 July 1998, the international community reached anhistoric milestone when 120 States adopted the Rome Statute,the legal basis for establishing the permanent InternationalCriminal Court.

The Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 afterratification by 60 countries.

The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case isinvestigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unlessthe national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formalproceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person fromcriminal responsibility. In addition, the ICC only tries thoseaccused of the gravest crimes.

Pursuant to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor can initiate aninvestigation on the basis of a referral from any State Party orfrom the United Nations Security Council. In addition, theProsecutor can initiate investigations proprio motu on the basisof information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Courtreceived from individuals or organizations (“communications”).To date, three States Parties to the Rome Statute – Uganda,the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central AfricanRepublic – have referred situations occurring on their territoriesto the Court. In addition, the Security Council has referred thesituation in Darfur, Sudan – a non‐State Party. After a thoroughanalysis of available information, the Prosecutor has openedand is conducting investigations in all of the above-mentionedsituations.

On March 31, 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber II granted theProsecution authorization to open an investigation proprio motuin the situation of Kenya.

In the situation in Uganda, the case The Prosecutor versusJoseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and DominicOngwen have been heard before Pre-Trial Chamber II inansentia. In this case, five warrants of arrest have been issuedagainst the five top members of the Lord's Resistance Army(LRA). ... Following the confirmation of the death of Mr Lukwiya,the proceedings against him have been terminated. The fourremaining suspects are still at large.

In the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, threecases have heard before the relevant Chambers: TheProsecutor versus Thomas Lubanga Dyila; The Prosecutorversus Bosco Ntaganda; and The Prosecutor versus GermainKatanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui.

The accused Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Germain Katanga andMathieu Ngudjolo Chui were in the custody of the ICC. Thesuspect Bosco Ntaganda remains at large even at this late date.In the situation in Darfur, Sudan, three cases were heard beforePre-Trial Chamber I: The Prosecutor v. Ahmad MuhammadHarun (“Ahmad Harun”) and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman(“Ali Kushayb”); The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad AlBashir and The Prosecutor v. Bahr Idriss Abu Garda

The suspect Bahr Idriss Abu Garda appeared voluntarily for thefirst time before Pre-Trial Chamber I on 18 May 2009. He is notin custody. The three other suspects remain at large.In the situation in the Central African Republic, the case TheProsecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo has been heardbefore Pre-Trial Chamber II.

We have said above that U.S. participation in the ICC is a pointof contention. However, this contention has not prevented AlexWhiting, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District ofMassachusetts to involve himself with the ICC. Whiting will join the International Criminal Court as investigation coordinator inDecember 2010 ... Whiting served in the Justice Department for11 years before pursuing international law. From 1991 to 1995,Whiting served as a trial attorney in the Criminal Section of theDOJ’s Civil Rights Division, before moving to Massachusetts,where he served in the Public Corruption and SpecialProsecutions Units until 2002.

In 2000, Attorney General Janet Reno awarded Whiting theAttorney General’s Distinguished Service Award — the JusticeDepartment’s second highest award — for his work on theinvestigation and prosecution of Arthur A. Coia, the generalpresident of a labor union who pleaded guilty to engaging in ascheme to defraud the state of Rhode Island.

In 2002, Whiting joined the Office of the Prosecutor at theInternational Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia as asenior trial attorney. He won the conviction of Serbian rebelleader Milan Martic by an international war crimes tribunal foratrocities committed in Croatia during the early 1990s.

In 2007, Whiting became an assistant clinical professor of law atHarvard Law School

As investigation coordinator, Whiting will inherit responsibilityover the ICC’s ongoing investigations in Uganda, theDemocratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, the Central AfricanRepublic and Kenya.

Upon his appointment as investigation Coordinator, Whiting saidin a statement “I am enormously excited and honored to havethis opportunity to work at the ICC ... The court faces staggeringchallenges in its mission to investigate and prosecute atrocitiesoccurring around the world. I look forward to contributing to thework of this important institution as it seeks to bring perpetratorsto justice.”

Historically, what is Barrack Obama's take on the ICCQuestion: “Should the United States ratify the ‘Rome Statute ofthe International Criminal Court (ICC)’? If not, what concerns doyou have that need to be resolved before you would supportjoining the court? Prior to ratification what should the UnitedStates relationship with the Court be, particularly in regardssharing intelligence prosecuting war criminals, and referringcases to the UN Security Council?

The future President's response to a Candidate questionnaireduring his 2004 Senate race:Answer: “Yes ... The United States should cooperate with ICCinvestigations in a way that reflects American sovereignty andpromotes our national security interests.”

Then in October 6, 2007, the future President just beginninghis campaign for President responded to this candidatequestionnaire:

Question: “Given the International Criminal Court’s recentactivities in pursuing war crimes and crimes against humanity,what would be your administration’s policy regarding U.S.cooperation with ongoing investigations?”

Answer: “Now that it is operational, we are learning more andmore about how the ICC functions. The Court has pursuedcharges only in cases of the most serious and systemic crimesand it is in America’s interests that these most heinous ofcriminals, like the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur, areheld accountable. These actions are a credit to the cause ofjustice and deserve full American support and cooperation. Yetthe Court is still young, many questions remain unansweredabout the ultimate scope of its activities, and it is premature tocommit the U.S. to any course of action at this time.

“The United States has more troops deployed overseas thanany other nation and those forces are bearing adisproportionate share of the burden in the protectingAmericans and preserving international security. Maximumprotection for our servicemen and women should come with thatincreased exposure. Therefore, I will consult thoroughly with ourmilitary commanders and also examine the track record of theCourt before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. shouldbecome a State Party to the ICC.”

Question: “Beyond cooperation with current investigations, whatshould the United States’ relationship be with the Court?”

Conclusion -- Obama as a candidate seemed to generally favorthe ICC — though he obviously had reservations about U.S.membership... Please note --- Bill Clinton had no suchreservation ... He signed the United Nations Treaty creating the ICC, but the U.S. Senate never voted on it during his term ...And the Bush Administration notified the United Nations that itwould not honor Clinton's commitment for the ICC ... Pulling itssignature out of the treaty in May 2002.

And as it was, Samantha Power made the following commentwhen she was still one of Obama’s senior foreign-policyadvisers in his campaign for President:Until we’ve closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly,renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face forAmerica, American membership of the ICC is going to makecountries around the world think the ICC is a tool of Americanhegemony.

If Barack Obama ratified the ICC or announced his support for iton day one, two things would happen. One, it would have thechance of discrediting the ICC in the short term, and two, hewould so strain his relations with the U.S. military that it wouldactually be very hard to recover. There’s a whole lot of internaldiplomacy, internal conversations about sovereignty and soforth that have to be had before you can think about that.

But Kevin Jon Heller in Opino Juris wrote July 26, 2008: The U.S. has been the ICC’s most bitter critic, refusing to ratify aStatute it played a critical role in drafting, launching a multi-yearblackmail campaign to force States to sign Article 98agreements, and even authorizing the use of military forceagainst the Hague should an American ever end up in the dockthere. Joining the ICC would thus not only demonstrate to theworld that the U.S no longer thinks it is above the (international)law, it would legitimize the Court in the eyes of its memberStates and — perhaps even more important — indicate to otherICC critics, such as Israel and Russia, that their opposition isunwarranted. Indeed, one could easily argue without too muchhyperbole that U.S. membership in the ICC would be the singlemost momentous event in the brief history of the Court, literallyheralding the dawn of a new era for international criminal justice.He continues: "The U.S. deserves the criticism it gets for itsirrational hostility to the ICC. But we cannot forget that, over thepast six decades, the U.S. has done as much as any country inthe world to promote international criminal justice. That’s whythe U.S. position on the Court is so distressing — and why a U.S. decision to join the Court would be cause for lastingcelebration"

During his eight years in office , George Bush kept theInternational Court of Criminal Court at arm’s length, refusing tojoin it but encouraged its work bringing malefactors to justice. With the US acting as the world’s policeman, Bush explained,he could not afford to allow the ICC to take jurisdiction over ourmilitary personnel and give our enemies a political lever forinterference. Gerald Warner at the Telegraph ( A UKpublication) gave us a warning in March of 2009 that BarackObama will reverse that decision — and that could open thedoor for a string of indictments relating to Iraq and Afghanistan.Writes Warner: "But the people who should be feeling reallynervous about this development are the citizens of the UnitedStates and more especially their armed forces. The signs arethat the grandstanding Barack Obama is preparing to subjectthe United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC. In May, 2002President Bush withdrew the United States from the RomeStatute which established the ICC. With America heading intoglobal conflict, he had no wish to see US troops arraigned foralleged war crimes before a kangaroo court.

That was a wise decision and probably required in terms of theUS Constitution. Already, however, the Obama administration issending out very different messages. America helped defeat aproposal that the warrant for Bashir should be suspended for 12months – which would have been a welcome respite for thesoup kitchens of Darfur. This is a policy change of considerablesignificance..

Nor is it the only straw in the wind. Last month US AmbassadorSusan Rice, in a closed meeting of the Security Council,supported the ICC, saying it “looks to become an important andcredible instrument for trying to hold accountable the seniorleadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo,Uganda and Darfur”. A week later Ben Chang, spokesman forNational Security Advisor General James Jones, took a similarline, telling the Washington Times: “We support the ICC in itspursuit of those who’ve perpetrated war crimes.”

The next logical step is for the United States to sign up to theICC. That would flatter Obama’s ego as the conscience of theworld. It would also put US servicemen at the mercy of anyAmerican-hating opportunists who might choose to arraign themon trumped-up charges before an alien court whose judges arelikely to be ill-disposed towards America too."

These words and thoughts providing a good reason whyConservative groups sometimes look in horror at BarrackObama's actions ... They say that the President is at it again ...This time he wants to impose his socialistic views on the UnitedStates by subjecting our citizens to the International CriminalCourt (ICC).

They claim that Obama recently dispatched a delegation to TheHague to explore issues involving United States' involvement inthe ICC, an organization that Conservatives believe could beused to prosecute American soldiers and political leaders ontrumped up criminal charges brought by left wing, or terroristsupporting, governments, like Iran.

They go far as suggest that Barack Obama believes that theUnited States should be subject to global laws, instead of theUnited States Constitution.

Organizations such as the United States Justice foundation(USJF) are very concerned about this shift in United Statespolicy, claiming the ICC does not recognize many of the U.S.Constitution's provisions protecting defendants in criminal trials,such as the right to trial by jury, and protections against double-jeopardy, which are the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights.

But ironically, Obama would guarantee these same rights toGuantanamo Inmates removed from the prison there for trial inthe United States

Says the USJC the main tenet of the ICC is that its jurisdictionextends only to those nations that ratify the ICC treaty.However, the Obama administration is, apparently, going toadopt a policy that would subject the United States to the ICC,even if the U. S. Senate does not adopt the treaty... A clearVIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!

The so-called "Rome" statute provides that when the basicrequisites for ICC jurisdiction under part of the statute havebeen met, then the ICC may exercise criminal jurisdiction overnationals of States not party to the Rome Statute, in this case,the citizens of the United States.

The ICC was given such jurisdiction in order to ensure thatoffenders of the most serious international crimes, which comeunder the jurisdiction of the Court, will be held accountable oftheir actions, regardless of their nationality.

This claimed jurisdiction is one of the concerns of USJF, andthey feel that this is an unlawful intrusion on our Sovereignty.

They are afraid that this United States Senate, led by HarryReid, working with other Senators they termed socialists in theDemocratic majority, will ratify the Rome Statute if it comes tothe Senate Floor, thus destroying the sovereignty of this country.

The fact is, their belief became reality as the Obama WhiteHouse pushed for ratification of this Treaty starting in May of2010. However, because of Public protest after ObombaCarewas forced on and Concern that the Public would again rise upon this issue, transparency was thrown out the window. Thus itoccurred that the Obama Administration attempted a end-runaround the treaty ratification process, "just in case."

Many Conservatives could not trust Harry Reid's Senate toprotect their Constitutional Rights! Then too, they could not trust the Obama Administration to protect their ConstitutionalRights either. They had already seen with the OBAMACAREPush how the Democratic majority in Congress, and the ObamaWhite House operate. These Conservations contend that theseindividuals do not care what is good for the United States, theyjust care about obtaining more power and pushing their radicalagenda!

It is their claim that the ICC does not offer the same due processrights, particularly right to trial by jury and protection againstdouble-jeopardy, rights which are guaranteed under the UnitedStates Constitution. These rights were the cornerstones of ourlegal protections in criminal cases, our "due process" rightswhich should never be infringed upon.

It was also their claim that the "Rome" Statute contravenesArticle I, Section 8, and Article III, Section I, of the U. S.Constitution, dealing with the establishment of domestic courts.

To counter the charges of Conservatives, those said to be onthe left will argue that the Rome Statute contains due processprotections that are essentially in line with protections under theU.S. Constitution, such as the right to remain silent, theguarantee against compulsory self-incrimination, thepresumption of innocence, the right to confront accusers andcross-examine witnesses, and the right to a speedy and publictrial ... But Conservatives counter by saying that even though alot of these rights parallel those in our Constitution, there is stillno right to trial by Jury.

Another problem with the ICC is that since Congress neithercreated the ICC nor approved its rules, the Rome Statute isinconsistent with the provisions found in Article I, Section 8, ofthe Constitution, which empowers Congress with the authorityto "constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court," andArticle III, Section 1, which states that "judicial power of theUnited States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and insuch inferior courts as the Congress from time to time ordainand establish."

To Conservatives, the Constitution is pretty clear in this regard.The power to create courts lies with Congress, and not with theglobal community. That is why they continue to hammer awaythe point after the fact that U.S. involvement in the ICC hascircumvented the U. S. Constitution and destroyed AmericanSovereignty.

We remind our readers that upon his appointment asinvestigation Coordinator, Alex Whiting said in a statement “I amenormously excited and honored to have this opportunity towork at the ICC ... The court faces staggering challenges in itsmission to investigate and prosecute atrocities occurring aroundthe world. I look forward to contributing to the work of thisimportant institution as it seeks to bring perpetrators to justice.”

A few such perpetrators to be brought to justice according togroups as diverse as anti-war advocates, Marxists, socialreformers and Muslim groups are former U.S President GeorgeW .Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and FormerAustralian Prime Minister John Howard and additional U.S.military and civilian officials.

The fact is, there was an attempt as early as November 30,2004, to bring George Bush to justice for crimes againsthumanity in Vancouver, British Columbia never-the-less...GailDavidson, Co Chair of an international group Lawyers againstWar, walked into Vancouver Provincial Court and convinced aJustice of Peace to accept seven criminal code charges againstBush while he was visiting Canada. She brought evidence tosupport her contention that Bush should be held criminallyresponsible for counseling, aiding and abetting torture at AbuGhraib prison in Iraq and a U,S military jail in Guantanamo Bay,Cuba. Each offense carried a prison sentence of up to fourteenyears. On December 6, 2004 , Provincial Court Judge WilliamKitchen ruled in an in-camera hearing that those charges were anullity-in-law meaning they never occurred even though theyhave been approved. Kitchen permitted Davidson to revealoutside the Courtroom that his decision was based on Bush'sdiplomatic immunity... A decision that the other Law Co-chair,Michael Mandel said was irregular in procedure and wrong insubstance. However, Michael Byers, an University of BritishColumbia expert in global politics and international law told thepress that a sitting head of state always has diplomatic immunity.

Davidson also told the press that she is personally committedthat Bush, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney , DefenseSecretary Donald Rumsfeld and others are held accountable.She claims that they committed a wide range of internationalcrimes "of the most serious nature" and insists that members ofthe United Nations such as Canada cannot avoid prosecution ofthese individuals and still maintain the integrity of their own legalsystems.

As it happened, on the same day, the New York based Centerfor Constitutional Rights laid war crime charges in Germany against Rumsfeld and nine other U.S. military personnel. InFebruary 2005 , a German Court threw out the case, rejectingthe CCR's contention that the U.S. is unwilling to prosecute itsown senior officials.

And in February , 2007 The Kuala Lumpur War CrimeCommission chaired by former Malaysian Prime Minister DrMahathir Mohamad heard nine charges against US PresidentGeorge W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair andAustralian Prime Minister John Howard for the sufferings of thepeople in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

Charge # 1 - Bush, Blair and Howard, through a deliberate planof deception, falsehood, forgery and outright lies, misled theirrespective Congress and Parliament to wage war against Iraqwhich was a "crime against peace."Charge # 2 - Bush, Blair and Howard embarked on asystematic campaign to destroy Iraq, Lebanon and Palestineeconomically and militarily.Charge # 3 - Bush, Blair and Howard ordered the destruction ofvital facilities essential to civilian lives in Iraq, Lebanon andPalestineCharge # 4 - Bush, Blair and Howard ordered the bombing ofschools, hospitals, mosques, churches, residential areas andhistorical sites and conveniently labeling the destruction as"collateral damage".Charge # 5 - Bush, Blair and Howard allowed the use ofweapons of mass destruction that inflicted indiscriminate deathand suffering against civilian targets such as the cluster bomb,napalm bomb, phosphorous bomb and depleted uraniumammunition.Charge # 6 - Bush, Blair and Howard fraudulently manipulatedthe United Nations and the Security Council as well ascorrupted its members to commit crimes against peace and wartimes.Charge # 7 - Bush, Blair and Howard destroyed theenvironment of Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.Charge # 8 - Bush, Blair and Howard ordered and condoned theviolation of human rights, specifically the civilians in the AbuGhraib prison in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as well as otherprisons known and unknown in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine andanywhere else in the world.Charge # 9 - Bush, Blair and Howard systematically controlledand manipulated, directed and misinformed the mass media soas to incite war to achieve their military objectives in Iraq,Lebanon and Palestine.

May we ask, are these gentleman also responsible for theterrorist suicide bombers who attack schools, mosques,hospitals, train stations, churches, historical sites, residentialareas, shopping bazaars and police stations... Somehow theLilliputians who seek to disarm and weaken the western worldfor their benefit walk around the world with blinders on theirheads so they could never see what they done to help continuethe turmoil that now and perhaps forever will exist in the worldbecause of mortal beings.

Then in May 2008, in a copyrighted article by Sorch Faal theRussian Foreign Ministry is alleged to have reported toPresident Medvedev that US Presidential candidate BarackObama had sent one of his top aides named Valerie Jarrett tomeet with officials from the International Committee of the RedCross, in Geneva, Switzerland, to what is being described asthe ‘preliminary stage’ to begin actions in the International Courtof Justice charging the then present United States President,then present Vice President and former US Defense Secretarywith war crimes.

The International Committee of the Red Cross opened in 2005 aWar Crimes Portfolio alleging that President Bush, VicePresident Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and otherUS Officials, were in violation of Articles 3 and 4 of the GenevaConvention and could be tried for Crimes Against Humanity.These two Articles of the Geneva Convention state:Article 3In the case of armed conflict not of an international characteroccurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties,each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,the following provisions:1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, includingmembers of armed forces who have laid down their arms andthose placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, orany other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religionor faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited atany time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;(b) Taking of hostages;(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating anddegrading treatment;(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executionswithout previous judgment pronounced by a regularlyconstituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which arerecognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.An impartial humanitarian body, such as the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to theParties to the conflict.The Parties to the conflict should further endeavor to bring intoforce, by means of special agreements, all or part of the otherprovisions of the present Convention.The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect thelegal status of the Parties to the conflict.Article 4A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, arepersons belonging to one of the following categories, who havefallen into the power of the enemy:1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as wellas members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of sucharmed forces.2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteercorps, including those of organized resistance movements,belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outsidetheir own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided thatsuch militias or volunteer corps, including such organizedresistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for hissubordinates;(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at adistance;(c) That of carrying arms openly;(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with thelaws and customs of war.3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to agovernment or an authority not recognized by the DetainingPower.4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actuallybeing members thereof, such as civilian members of militaryaircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors,members of labor units or of services responsible for the welfareof the armed forces, provided that they have receivedauthorization from the armed forces which they accompany, whoshall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similarto the annexed model.5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices,of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of theParties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favorabletreatment under any other provisions of international law.6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approachof the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invadingforces, without having had time to form themselves into regulararmed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect thelaws and customs of war.B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of warunder the present Convention:1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forcesof the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers itnecessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, eventhough it has originally liberated them while hostilities weregoing on outside the territory it occupies, in particular wheresuch persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin thearmed forces to which they belong and which are engaged incombat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made tothem with a view to internment.2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumeratedin the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powersare required to intern under international law, without prejudiceto any more favorable treatment which these Powers maychoose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30,fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relationsexist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning theProtecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, theParties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall beallowed to perform towards them the functions of a ProtectingPower as provided in the present Convention, without prejudiceto the functions which these Parties normally exercise inconformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medicalpersonnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of thepresent Convention.”

Russian diplomats took the line that Senator Obama’s actionsagainst the present US Leaders in his country in having arepresentative meet with the International Red Cross were dueto the testimony heard in Washington where American soldiersdetailed the war atrocities they allegedly were ordered tocommit..

Russian legal experts further state that Senator Obama, shouldhe become the next President of the United States, he ‘almostcertainly’ would have to file War Crime charges against theseUS War Leaders to keep himself from being brought up onthese charges should he ignore them.

Benjamin Ferencz, the former chief prosecutor of theNuremberg Trials against the Nazis, and who is the foundingfather of the basis behind International law regarding warcrimes, has also stated that "There is a case for trying Bush forthe supreme crime against humanity, and an illegal war ofaggression against a sovereign nation."

Of course, at the time, the Russians were intimidated by the factthat the Bush Administration planned to provide anti-missiledefense system to Poland and the Czech Republic which at onetime were former satellite nations of the Soviet Union. Relationsbetween Putin and Bush had seen better days. And as it hasoccurred, relations between Putin and Obama has not warmedup to the point of them being buddies. But Obama did budge abit on the anti-missile issue.

Obama, of course, if he had intended to move against membersof the Bush Administration and the former President himself, hasnot yet done that. Maybe to the chagrin of Russian Officials...But the word is still out there that if Obama makes a secondterm ... Former members of the Bush Administration could be charged with grave crimes by members of Al-Qaeda and enemynon-combatants once held at Guantanamo Bay in Cubaespecially the Yemenis scheduled to be transferred to a U.S.prison Camp the Obama Administration plans to locate inThompson Illinois...

Interestingly, the Obama Administration's proposal to relocateGuantanamo Bay detainees to Illinois' Thomson CorrectionalCenter Conservative was an issue in itself. media figures,including Rush Limbaugh and Jim Hoft, have suggested that theJanuary 2010 escape of three prisoners from the privatelymanaged Tri-County Detention Center in Illinois demonstratesthat Guantánamo detainees should not be moved to Illinois'Thomson Correctional Center, as the Obama administration hasproposed. But federal officials have stated their intention toenhance the Thomson facility's security to levels exceeding thatof the Supermax prison in Colorado, which currently holdsnumerous terrorists and from which there has never been anescape; moreover, a 2001 Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)study found that privately managed prisons have higher escaperates than federal prison

Also as we speak The White House finally released the 100threvision of a declassified account of government missteps thatallowed a suspected terrorist to slip through security andattempt to blow up a plane on Christmas 2009.

Still more --- In other news: Yemen has once again rejecteddirect U.S. intervention in its crackdown on al Qaeda, ForeignMinister Abubakr al-Qirbi said Yemen security forces must fightthe militants within its borders, but they would accept someassistance from other countries. "What we need from the UnitedStates and other partners is to build our capability to provide uswith the technical know-how, with the equipment, with theintelligence information and with the firepower," Qirbi said. Inother words, Yemen wanted more money from the United States... Unfortunately, the Obama White House with all its pastStimulus Packages cannot raise enough Yen to satisfy ForeignMinister Abubakr al-Qirbi's wants and needs.